The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new armies

Redfish · Post by **Redfish** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:51 pm

I know all the testers et al are working hard on a lot of tricky issues, but we really need more guidance on what is going to be coming in the new rules because it seriously affects the decision to build new armies. For example, I run Macedonian/Seluecid now but I would like to branch into Chinese. However, the Chinese lists are all MF, with a lot of the armies having an option to go either lancer/sword or bow/sword cavalry. How can I make any sort of considered decision on selecting and building a Chinese army suitable for fighting armies from other books without having some idea about how (i) the possible re-classification of some Chinese MF to HF; (ii) the HF/MF movement and combat issues; and (iii) the mounted bow fire and retreat issues are going to be resolved? I really am being held back from expanding my participation in FOG by the uncertainty surrounding FOG v2, and I can't be the only player who feels that way. So please give us some guidance where the rules are headed and get us out of this limbo. (And from other recent comments on the board, it looks like FOG 2 is summer of 2012 at the earliest! Is that true?)

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:05 pm

I hear your comment clearly, but I don't think there is much to be done about it.

In some senses knowing that it WILL radically change the way these armies perform is good reason to hold off.

We could be in a situation like other rules players who don't even get any consultation what-so-ever. The new rules come out regularly and deliberately increase sales by increasing the ability of some troop type.

I think you just have to be patient.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:09 pm

Redfish wrote:I know all the testers et al are working hard on a lot of tricky issues, but we really need more guidance on what is going to be coming in the new rules because it seriously affects the decision to build new armies. For example, I run Macedonian/Seluecid now but I would like to branch into Chinese. However, the Chinese lists are all MF, with a lot of the armies having an option to go either lancer/sword or bow/sword cavalry. How can I make any sort of considered decision on selecting and building a Chinese army suitable for fighting armies from other books without having some idea about how (i) the possible re-classification of some Chinese MF to HF; (ii) the HF/MF movement and combat issues; and (iii) the mounted bow fire and retreat issues are going to be resolved? I really am being held back from expanding my participation in FOG by the uncertainty surrounding FOG v2, and I can't be the only player who feels that way. So please give us some guidance where the rules are headed and get us out of this limbo. (And from other recent comments on the board, it looks like FOG 2 is summer of 2012 at the earliest! Is that true?)

All I could say is that all imput has now stopped on the V2 forum, the authors are now away IIRC doing the final version

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:17 am

I would say the answer is the changes will not be enough it matter. The only v2 advice that I think is warrented is don't invest in a pure LH and LF army. But an army with MF and Cv is going to be just fine.

gregernest · Post by **gregernest** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:57 pm

My current issue is similar to the OP.

I've got my Romans here, unbased.

After picking up FoG:R, it shows HF based as 20mm, not 15mm.

Of course there is the note about non-standard bases, but I'd like to know if FoG:AM v2 is going to follow FoG:R, or if I am safe basing my HF (including Aux.) on 15mm?

My point is that I need to know so I can order the bases to go with the lead!

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:08 pm

hazelbark wrote:I would say the answer is the changes will not be enough it matter. The only v2 advice that I think is warrented is don't invest in a pure LH and LF army. .

ie not a Numidian army then.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:41 pm

gregernest wrote:My current issue is similar to the OP.

I've got my Romans here, unbased.

After picking up FoG:R, it shows HF based as 20mm, not 15mm.

Of course there is the note about non-standard bases, but I'd like to know if FoG:AM v2 is going to follow FoG:R, or if I am safe basing my HF (including Aux.) on 15mm?

My point is that I need to know so I can order the bases to go with the lead!

HF standard base size will remain 15mm deep for 15mm figures in FoG:AM.

gregernest · Post by **gregernest** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:45 pm

God bless you, Nik! Thanks for the answer!

Off to order bases...!

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:24 am

gregernest wrote:God bless you, Nik! Thanks for the answer!

Off to order bases...!

And not only that. If you based them differently you just play them as intended. Says so in the rules.

There are many, many horrible things that can correctly be said about the authors. But making wholesale changes in basing is not one of them.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:28 am

hazelbark wrote:There are many, many horrible things that can correctly be said about the authors.

So the rumours are true?

gregernest · Post by **gregernest** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:51 pm

I know about flexible basing, but I'm building these figures just to play FoG. I want them as 'official' as I can get.

My next question is about how to base-up attached Aux Archers. They are MF and the Aux they are attached to are now HF. Are we now allowed to mix troop types in a BG? Or do these archers count as HF and need to be on 15mm bases?

I don't expect another quick answer, but if Nik is still around, this Yankee would be very grateful.

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:59 pm

Yep waiting V2 I've stop painting ancient and medieval miniatures.
I dunno if the Kofun Nara will still be playable

, for my Kushan range I'm waiting to see if I should paint CV or LH

and finally for my Palmyrans it seems I will have to remove the lights for someting else

.
So waiting V2, I'm painting 18th century miniatures

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:32 pm

gregernest wrote:I know about flexible basing, but I'm building these figures just to play FoG. I want them as 'official' as I can get.

My next question is about how to base-up attached Aux Archers. They are MF and the Aux they are attached to are now HF. Are we now allowed to mix troop types in a BG? Or do these archers count as HF and need to be on 15mm bases?

I don't expect another quick answer, but if Nik is still around, this Yankee would be very grateful.

The archers that can be part of Roman HF BGs (and indeed MF ones) are LF, based as such, and not MF - this has not changed from v1, I suspect you have misread/misunderstood something somewhere.

gregernest · Post by **gregernest** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:23 pm

Back to the rulebook...

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:58 am

Chinese MF are not going to be reclassified as HF.

We have also decided to leave the existing optional MF/HF status for thureophoroi etc and Roman auxilia.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:36 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Chinese MF are not going to be reclassified as HF.

We have also decided to leave the existing optional MF/HF status for thureophoroi etc and Roman auxilia.

Some useful information

Richard, any chance sometime in the (near) future of getting a broad outline of some of the significant changes in 2.0? For example, if I were doing a Seluk Turk army would cavalry now be more useful than light horse?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:41 am

rbodleyscott wrote:Chinese MF are not going to be reclassified as HF.

We have also decided to leave the existing optional MF/HF status for thureophoroi etc and Roman auxilia.

Hoo-f****g-ray

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n · Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:11 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:

We have also decided to leave the existing optional MF/HF status for thureophoroi etc and Roman auxilia.

Good news.

Paul

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:40 pm

someone who is morally bankrupt wrote:Good News

Your reasons for appluading this decision are obviously different to mine Paul.

Hopefully none of the lists will be changed using the 'new' rules as publication method.

If they need to be changed it should be done by an official errata to add the Tibetan Exorcists until New Lists are written

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:57 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Hopefully none of the lists will be changed using the 'new' rules as publication method.

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new armies

The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new armies

Re: The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new ar

Re: The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new ar

Re: The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new ar

Re: The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new ar